Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.

Those links all work. For some reason the show up between the and (broken link) tags. Extract what is between. I did read the IOWA report and it agrees with the data I presented. It says there is a 50% increase in lung cancer risk. Since over 90% of lung cancer occures in smokers and former smokers, the most of this increase is among smokers.

There are 2900 never smokers that die of lung cancer each year, check the links above. According to the IOWA report and my data, 1000 of those could be saved through mitigation. I don't dispute those facts. The argument is whether that number vs the mitigation activity indicates it is overhyped. 1000 preventable deaths vs 2.4 million deaths otherwise, and vs over 40,000 dying of car accidents, 28,000 dying from smoking, and 1000 dying on bicycles, all of these latter activities Americans perform each day without second guessing. Therefore, the numbers suggest and American action suggests that it is overhyped. Particularly since $800 would buy a breathalyzer lockout for cars, nicotine addiction treatment for smokers, and bicycle training.

Not disputing the facts, just the overreaction to the facts. Don't confuse government action with fact or proper response. Why would the same government allow sale of cigarettes and actually profit from the sale through taxes and yet try tos save a third of those smokers by radon mitigation code. We have to learn to think for ourselves.

I looked at the links Blankhost provided (you have to play with some of them to get them to work) and the information is similar to what I found when I looked into this issue. If you ask most people, they would easily say 1000 lives are worth saving. The problem is the $800-$1000 for mitigation is paid up front.

If everyone agrees that $800-$1000 dollars paid up front is cheap for fixing radon polluted homes in order to save 1000 lives per year, then what should we be paying up front on our cars to bring the death toll down and save 40,000 lives per year? If we as owners of dangerous cars spent that same $800 dollars up front per thousand lives saved, that would be at least $32000 dollars. Saving 40,000 people per year would be a good thing wouldn't it? I'm not willing to spend $32000 dollars up front though, unless it is on a large SUV

I found it interesting that one of the top radon exposure occupations was the radon mitigator as called out at this link. I guess if I was worried about radon exposure I wouldn't want that job. I'll have to point that out to my radon inspector. Radon: risk assessment (http://www1.umn.edu/eoh/hazards/hazardssite/radon/radonriskassessment.html - broken link)

I think an overlooked fact is that most of the radon exposure occurs is in the basement. The EPA 4.0 pci/L level assumes a lifetime of exposure. Most people spent only a few hours a day in their basement if it is finished, and hardly ever if it is not. If your basement tests 5.0, but the rest of the house is below 4.0, you probably don't need mitigation to fall out of the EPA risk group, particularly if you don't spend alot of time down there.

Regarding the radon map and lung cancer map mismatch in Blankhost's entry, the lung cancer map probably shows the demographics of where the smokers actually live. Lung cancer is 90% attributed to smoking. 10% of lung cancer deaths are due to other causes, probably radon exposure, with only about 4% due to exposure to radon in the home, based on what I have read in these links and others. Another correlation problem would be that people move around alot. So you may only spend 5-7 years in a high radon home before moving, so you don't get the lifetime exposure.

I think this is a great place to share information and ideas! I also think it is great when people share their links to their information. That way we can read the information for ourselves. One way to avoid hype is to supply the full information and your interpretation. The EPA should state often and not just in fine print in a footnote that the 4.0 pCi/L assumes lifetime exposure. They should also point out that people should address their smoking habits first. They should also point out that for nonsmokers your chance of becoming a lung cancer fatality is 1 in 2400 (1000 radon related lung cancer deaths vs 2.4 Million other deaths) as compared to 30 in 2400 for smokers. They should also provide a comparison that people can relate to such as you have a 42 in 2400 chance of being killed in a car accident. That way people can put things into perspective.

Remember, there is not one study, ever yet performed that has demonstrated that radon concentrations as found in residences increases the risk of cancer.

Let me repeat that: there is not ONE study, NONE, that have ever been conducted that has demonstrated that radon concentrations as found in residences increases the risk of cancer. Not One.

There are many studies that use what we call “no-threshold linear dose response” model where in we take exposures amounting to millions of pCi/l and then force the data through “zero”… however, even those scientists who use those kinds of models (like myself) admit that the models are invalid and do not really accurately predict the risks at low levels.

What we DO know is that the valid studies that have thus been performed consistently show that radon exposures, as commonly seen in residences, appear to LOWER the risk of lung cancer.

How ironic it may be that in the next 20 years, the value of a house may be depressed if it has a radon mitigation system, and a whole new industry springs where companies sell their services to remove those dangerous radon mitigation systems that our fool-hearted, gullible grand parents had installed in their houses!

For the science and more information behind the radon hype, you may visit my web discussions at:

Remember, there is not one study, ever yet performed that has demonstrated that radon concentrations as found in residences increases the risk of cancer.

Let me repeat that: there is not ONE study, NONE, that have ever been conducted that has demonstrated that radon concentrations as found in residences increases the risk of cancer. Not One.

There are many studies that use what we call “no-threshold linear dose response” model where in we take exposures amounting to millions of pCi/l and then force the data through “zero”… however, even those scientists who use those kinds of models (like myself) admit that the models are invalid and do not really accurately predict the risks at low levels.

What we DO know is that the valid studies that have thus been performed consistently show that radon exposures, as commonly seen in residences, appear to LOWER the risk of lung cancer.

How ironic it may be that in the next 20 years, the value of a house may be depressed if it has a radon mitigation system, and a whole new industry springs where companies sell their services to remove those dangerous radon mitigation systems that our fool-hearted, gullible grand parents had installed in their houses!

For the science and more information behind the radon hype, you may visit my web discussions at:

(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

Anytime one is in the minority and the pencil necked politicos are the marjority you know you're on the correct side.

What you still have never brought to the argumnet is an actual scientific study that stands up to peer review and supports the hysteria. The fact that the World Health Org. is "on board" is a clear indication that the radon thing is a joke.

facts count...not a loon head count

Quote:

Originally Posted by radonguy

Boy you sure are in the minority on this one!

Why is the WHO-World Health Org. activily working on measurement and mitigation standards in high risk areas of the world? They must all be money hungry doomsdayers. Yup...Follow the money

Why has the state of Minnesota required that all new homes have simple passive system installed. And many other states are moving in that direction....Follow the money

Canada has just dropped there action level from about 20pCi/L to 5pCi/L. They must all be ignorant also. Yup...Follow the money

Maybe you know someone who has never smoked or been exposed to Class A carcinogens like RADON is and has suddenly comes down with lung cancer.

Actually, JBrown is quite correct and I’m not at all in the minority – far from it, I am very much in the majority.

Your argument is not particularly tenable, since you seem to think that just because a government (or two or three or ten), passes a particular policy, that somehow establishes the truthful nature of the policy. But that means that you would have to accept that slavery, torture, euthanasia, subjugation of women, exploitation of child labor laws, etc, are all perfectly acceptable and based on accepted truths, since – according to your argument, dozens to hundreds of governments have (and indeed still do) practice these concepts.

Also, using your own argument, if the government policies were all based on sound science, why are their policies so HUGELY different? Heck, even in the U.S.A. the reduction and control of exposures to radon IS NOT REGULATED, rather, it is merely suggested.

However, governments are not the repositories of objective truth - governments are run off politics, not objective facts. Politics is a mixture of fear, economics, facts, concerns, perceptions and desires for power. Only one of those factors, “facts” is objective – the remaining factors are subjective. Governments don’t just pick on radon, governments implement policies on a variety of issues based on little more than myth – radon is just one of many. Look at saccharine, Alar, DDT, EMFs from high voltage wires, and global warming just to name a few other boogey men that have been hiding in the policy wonk’s closet – stripped bare of any actual science.

Now, you have described yourself as a radon mitigation contractor – and that’s O.K., I recognize that your bread and butter rely on the propagation of the myth, and therefore you have a vested interest in not knowing (or talking about the facts). Trust me, I know, I also went through the EPA Certified radon mitigation course and became a US EPA “Certified Radon Mitigation Contractor.”

However, the certification class is pitched at about a seventh grade level of education, and there is virtually no actual education on radiation – and provided that one is capable of merely regurgitating the gobbledegook fed to the participant, one passes the course and becomes a US EPA “Certified Radon Mitigation Contractor.” By the way, “radonguy” I aced the final exam (that is, I passed the exam with a score of 100% - it was the first time that had happened; what was your score?”)

In truth, my scientific opinion is precisely in the vast majority, and allow me to prove it. I will challenge you here, publically, to cite one, just ONE, valid scientific study, devoid of confounders, that conclusively shows that radon exposures as commonly seen in houses increases the risk of cancer, by even the slightest amount.

You can’t do – because no such study exists. That is because the overwhelming VAST majority of science does not support the policy wonk’s (government) policies on radon. In fact if you actually read the US EPA’s NESHAPS on radionuclides (radon), I think you would be rather horrified to find that what I am saying is actually documented deep within the EPA’s own documentation.

Please, it’s not an idle challenge; seriously see if you can find a single study – just one. And don’t just cite various articles and papers, read them first, because in my 20 years I have performed dozens of scientific critical reviews on such papers, and I have certainly read (and understood) hundreds. I am going to respectfully suggest that you have never actually read any of the studies on the subject.

Consider the following two facts: 1) Every legitimate study thus published to date indicates that an house with a radon concentration of around 20 pCi/L would result in a cancer risk that is LOWER than an house with just one pCi/L; 2) The US EPA (after being horribly ridiculed in the global scientific community) has backed off it’s recommendations and would now tell the US public that if their house contains say 15 piC/L, they probably should think about maybe doing something about it in the next several YEARS …. (sort of a lack of urgency on the issue of exposure).

Cheers!Caoimhín P. ConnellForensic Industrial HygienistModerator cut: Please do not use a web site in a post signature. this could be construed as advertising(The opinions expressed here are exclusively my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect my professional opinion, opinion of my employer, agency, peers, or professional affiliates. The above post is for information only and does not reflect professional advice and is not intended to supercede the professional advice of others.)

In your list of government hysteria, you forgot the whole asbestos thing. Asbestos is terrible for people who work in places where they have to breathe the dust for long periods of time, but as flooring in your house, insulation on your pipes or in your walls etc, it is not going to hurt you as long as you do not turn it into dust and breathe it. Now we spend hundreds of millions removing aesbestos from old buildings where it would do no harm if left alone

Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.